Backgrounds in moderation

[Gustav]

Gustav is a shit-stirrer. That's just fine and dandy, right up to the point where he breaks the site rules. At that point, I'm quite content to step in and slap him down.

how is that working out for you?

Moderator note: I have lifted Gustav's ban.

/chuckle

get your ass back into the "James R's Independent Review Process" thread. i have tons of questions regarding your slap downs

I will reply to some of the posts above when I have some time.

excellent
comedy hour with james r
gather around children

 

[wynn]

I second the opinion that JamesR should resign.

Then someone would have to do his administrator job.

Do you have anyone in mind?

 

[Varda]

There's three others on the list.

 

[wynn]

Who are barely ever here.

 

[Varda]

Run a campaign.

 

[James R]

Catching up...

Well, since the rest of us have to take heat in public, from the community, for you, I think it's both fair and appropriate that the public might witness this disagreement.

I don't see anybody else "taking heat" over my banning of Gustav. Certainly not you. On the contrary, you've joined the angry mob in wielding the pitchforks and storming the castle, as you put it.

There are a lot of conflicts moderators could resolve with members if they didn't have the additional weight of guilt by association; we are all tarnished by your idiotic interpretations of posts and rules, and your exploitation of your authority for personal ends. We all have to answer for you.

You ought to resign on principle.

It's a convenient excuse for avoiding his inquiry. You know, he inquired as to what the problem was. He may not have agreed with my answer, but at least I answered him.

I explained the problem when I initially banned him. More to come on that when I catch up with the six or seven separate threads that this matter has spun off so far. A bystander could be forgiven for thinking that the sky was falling or something.

The first ban was just a pathetic excuse for you to take it out on a member you don't like.

Well, it's good to see that your public attacks on me aren't just a pathetic excuse to out your personal animosity on a member you don't like. I'm so glad you have the perspective to know a pathetic excuse when you see one.

Moreover, he has actually added to his offence by breaking another rule - overriding a moderator edit of his post (in this case deletion of the original material) by reposting the material.

By inquiring about what was wrong with it?

Just read what I wrote. You quoted it, so read it!

If he had enquiries, he could have PMed me rather than publically reposting the offending material.

Had he simply reposted it for the sake of reposting it, then yes, you would have a point. But the precedent you have set with this means that an inquiry as to what the original problem was can be circumvented, since the material apparently cannot be reviewed at Sciforums after a moderator has deleted it according to his interpretation subject to a predisposition against the member.

He could have PMed either myself or some other moderator or admin to get the decision reviewed. As it was, it was already under review anyway.

You will also notice, however, that I let you have your way with that first suspension, and I have even explained to Gustav why that is. I've known since your little tantrum last year that there isn't really any point to arguing with you.

You mean my little tantrum in which you started, as in the current thread, with posting information and complaints to the public forums that should rightly have been in the Moderators subforum? You mean my little tantrum in which you called for my demotion as an administrator, saying that I was a "detriment to the forum"? Yeah, I remember my little tantrum well. It looks like I might be having another one now. Am I? Or maybe this little tantrum is just a continuation from last November's one. It seems I have some unresolved issues.

It's quite clear that the only reason you care what anyone thinks of your moderation is a matter of self love.

Lots of things are quite clear to you, I find.

You can't possibly be wrong, can you, James?

Sure I can. I have reversed a number of decisions that I have made following discussions among the moderator group. And I have started a thread in the Moderators forum to discuss our policy about giving legal advice to criminals - something that hasn't come up before now.

But I'm wondering: can you possibly be wrong, Tiassa?

I've recognized that about your attitude since at least September, 2009, when you accused a member of anti-American bigotry; when it was pointed out to you that the member wasn't saying anything that couldn't be found in the American political discourse, you ducked that point by accusing bias.

You can't possibly be wrong, James. And the rest of us have to answer for it.

Oh, and if your recollection of the majority of moderators contributing to that discussion is correct, would you be so kind as to point me to it? There is no entry in the suspension log; indeed, the only mention of it I've found is one moderator questioning the suspension in the internal memoranda. You did not see fit to respond to that memo, at least in view of any of the rest of us. Neither do I see that support for your action in the thread where the violation occurred.

I mean, perhaps if that majority constitutes one out of one moderator who happened to comment in a post somewhere, I've simply missed it. But where else should I be looking? I even checked the warnings log. Where is this discussion that I apparently missed?

You seem to be talking about ancient history here, real or imagined. With no links or other background, I really have no idea what you're referring to, other than that it was something that supposedly happened back in 2009. I suggest we stick to present matters.

The first suspension was an overreaction, and that's stating it kindly. It might be more accurate to suggest that it was a calculated overreaction.

Deleting the material was a judgment call, and I think a defensible one. As for the suspension, Gustav was sitting on 3 active infraction points at the time. I gave him a lesser penalty than could have been given. In other words, as stated previously, I was lenient.

You're vicious when someone gets under your skin. We've seen it before. When you suspended S.A.M. for thirty days because you didn't like her opinion; when you lied about me; when you suspended EFoC on behalf of a bigoted standard of offense. You're looking for any excuse to get rid of Gustav. If we treat all of our members this way, we won't have any left.

I suspended SAM for 30 days because I didn't like her opinion? When did that supposedly happen? And that's just the first fantasy.

If the first ban was wrong, then perhaps you should have argued as much more forcefully when the moderators discussed the matter.

Point me to the discussion, please.

I have looked back at various threads in the Moderators forum, and I actually can't find any discussion. Bells apparently raised the issue, along with another more pressing issue in the same post. It looks like I dealt with the second matter and didn't get back to the first one. Apart from that post, there was not a query or any discussion from any moderator about Gustav's ban, right up to the time I banned him the second time. So, like I said, perhaps you ought to have said something at the time, since it now turns out that you have such strong feelings about it (at least retrospectively).

No, James. I'm fucking sick and tired of having to answer for you.

Point me to a few instances where you have answered for me. I'm interested, seeing as you're such a stalwart defender of mine and all.

Meanwhile, it is time for you to resign. Period.

I think you ought to resign in protest.

And you've been off the rails for years.

Yeah. I've noticed my temper tantrums.

---------

The truth is out.

The lists exist.

Tiassa may have a private "hit list". I certainly don't. And number 1 on Tiassa's list would be me, I assume.

OK I think JamesR appears to have a problem with anyone who ever associated with spuriousmonkey. It has gotten out of hand in my view.

I have no problem with you, so that kind of blows your theory out of the water, wouldn't you say? Unless you're determined to make yourself a problem, that is.

--------

If we can't have an option to vote out moderators from office, could we acquire the right to vote them in after a set term has expired?

Also, should anyone get permabanned without a vote?

Electing moderators has been tried in the past, with mixed results. The answer to the second question is an obvious "yes", at least in a forum where you have moderators tasked with enforcing the site rules.

It's worth noting, by the way, that far and away the majority of bans are for newly-registered spammers, many of whom few people even see because their posts are quickly deleted and they are quickly dealt with by the moderators. Banning a member who has more than 100 posts (say) is exceedingly rare, and permabans even moreso.

-------

I second the opinion that JamesR should resign.

/falls off chair in surprise

I know nothing about the person, but the point that I have been making for several years is that we can't bw throwing out our best people like they are expendable.

Deciding who are the "best people" is, naturally, an objective process.

But you make it sound like people are thrown out on a whim. What actually happens is that people get themselves thrown out. It's usually a process that takes some time and persistence on the part of the throwee.

Think about all the people that used to post here 3 or so years ago, and who are all gone, either pushed out or too frustrated to continue. Who came to take their place, outside of a very few memorable mentions?

How interesting, coming from the girl who makes it a point to try her best to drive new members away the moment they arrive by, for example, posting insulting and/or unwelcoming messages in their "Hello" threads.

Did anyone notice the impact of not having gustav here for a single week?

Yeah. I noticed that the mods were able to breathe a sigh of relief about the reduced workload, and we actually saw some content posted here rather than the current sort of meta-discussion.

Maybe us 20 or so should up and leave too.

Rally the troops then, Varda!

So, you'll be in the lead, marching off in the general direction of spuriousmonkey's forum, closely followed by ... whom? Gustav? Tiassa? geekzilla? Reiku's latest sock puppet?

---------

Eat shit and die, you petty fascist thug.

Ah! This thread just wouldn't be the same without a personal insult or three from quadraphonics. You ought to try yoga or something, quad. You're way too uptight.

By rights, you are overdue for a good strong kick in the teeth according to your shithead bullying and abuses of power.

Breathe. Count slowly to 10. Relax. Go to your happy place.

You may have heard of "Miranda rights" in the USA? I.e., when arresting a suspect (a "criminal" is someone who has been found guilty, not merely accused), the arresting officers are legally required to inform them of their right to remain silent and access legal council, for the express reason that it may help them avoid prosecution. This is not only not illegal - but any statements made without such a warning are inadmissible in court, exactly for reasons of due process.

Yes. Similar rights exist in many other countries too. But what bearing does this has on the material posted by Gustav, which was explicitly addressed to those who had committed crimes in the London riots? Presumably, when arrested those criminals would be duly informed of their right to remain silent by the police. Otherwise, like you said, their statements could not be used as evidence in court.

Likewise, your nutcase authoritarian legal standards would criminalize legal defense council, as Gustav has already noted in this very thread.

My reply to that point is also noted in this thread, so no need to repeat.

You are openly advocating against due process, presumption of innosence, the right to council, etc. - the very foundations of modern jurisprudence - and not simply covering this site's ass from legal trouble. You are a thug and a brute, and the last person to lecture anyone on "due process."

You don't know me, so you don't know why this paragraph in particular gave me a good laugh. Pity.

You're the very last person here who has standing to complain about personal sniping. Who do you think you're fooling? You can barely go two posts without taking a cheap shot at somebody. You couldn't even resist calling Gustav "stupid" in your "mod-hat" post up-thread.

This from the man who starts his posts with "Eat shit and die"?

The comedy continues.

Apparently Colonel JamesR is extremely worried about being sued by the CCP for failing to conform to something like their draconian, authoritarian conceptions of criminal "justice."

What's the CCP? You think I'd know what I was so worried about, but seemingly I don't. Funny that.

 

[Enmos]

You people are shameless.
And Tiassa, why do you feel the need to attack James like this in public? Don't you think this should be discussed either in private or in the mod-forum? Currently it looks like you're just a bit too happy leading the lynch-mob.
I think this whole situation is completely intolerable. At least one person should be banned right away; quadraphonics. Why didn't you ban him, Tiassa? I can see why James didn't.

 

[Bells]

I don't see anybody else "taking heat" over my banning of Gustav. Certainly not you. On the contrary, you've joined the angry mob in wielding the pitchforks and storming the castle, as you put it.

Then you obviously have not been paying attention.

The issue James is that you tarnish everyone with your actions. When you make a bad judgement call, we have to answer for it, because you would not and do not. I was later advised by a former colleague that as James, the administrator, you apparently don't have to answer to anyone and that I and others should stand with you and not break ranks, even if we disagree with you and even when you refuse to support your claims.

Anyone who dares ask you questions or who asks you to explain your actions is part of the "angry mob". The "dark side", as you put it, wasn't it? Possibly the "host of criminals" that exist in this forum James?

So here we are, the "angry mob" out for your head supposedly. It's "only the internet" James. Remember? The thing is, James, as soon as you start to see anyone not in that little enclave of favoured moderators who will never say boo in disagreement with you as the "angry mob", then you will always have problems.

The so called "angry mob" aren't after your head. They just want you to be responsible and accountable for your actions and be able to answer questions about your moderation without you banning them outright and calling them "stupid" for daring to ask. It's been over two weeks since I enquired about that first ban. You still haven't answered it. But then, hey, I forget. You're James and I am the "silly little girl" who is now apparently in the "dark side" and part of the "angry mob".

You ought to resign on principle.

Do you even know what that is?

I explained the problem when I initially banned him. More to come on that when I catch up with the six or seven separate threads that this matter has spun off so far. A bystander could be forgiven for thinking that the sky was falling or something.

No actually. You did not.

You did not document that first ban in the moderator's forum. At all. Which was why I brought it up to your notice in the first place and you are still to respond to that query. It's been over 2 weeks now, hasn't it?

You had also sited moderator support for that initial ban. Perhaps that was given in private and outside of view in the mod forum, because I was the only one who asked about it and commented on it. Nothing from you or anyone else.

Well, it's good to see that your public attacks on me aren't just a pathetic excuse to out your personal animosity on a member you don't like. I'm so glad you have the perspective to know a pathetic excuse when you see one.

He probably didn't get the memo that only you are allowed to attack anyone in public. When you start calling members stupid for asking you to explain why you banned them before banning them again, apparently, that's not an attack is it? What is it then? Just "the internet"?

If he had enquiries, he could have PMed me rather than publically reposting the offending material.

The material wasn't offending. He was asking you a question, which you are still to answer. Wait.. no.. I forget. You are not required or expected to answer for your actions.

You mean my little tantrum in which you started, as in the current thread, with posting information and complaints to the public forums that should rightly have been in the Moderators subforum? You mean my little tantrum in which you called for my demotion as an administrator, saying that I was a "detriment to the forum"? Yeah, I remember my little tantrum well. It looks like I might be having another one now. Am I? Or maybe this little tantrum is just a continuation from last November's one. It seems I have some unresolved issues.

The unresolved issue is your lack of accountability James.

Lots of things are quite clear to you, I find.

It's everyone else James. Just not you.

Sure I can. I have reversed a number of decisions that I have made following discussions among the moderator group. And I have started a thread in the Moderators forum to discuss our policy about giving legal advice to criminals - something that hasn't come up before now.

But I'm wondering: can you possibly be wrong, Tiassa?

It did come up before now. You ignored it.

But yes, you are the benevolent leader. Reversing decisions without apology or explanation to why or how you came to the decision in the first place..

Are you ever wrong James?

Deleting the material was a judgment call, and I think a defensible one. As for the suspension, Gustav was sitting on 3 active infraction points at the time. I gave him a lesser penalty than could have been given. In other words, as stated previously, I was lenient.

Why give a penalty at all? Why the lack of documentation in the first place? Why not just delete it with a gentle reminder? Oh wait, it's Gustav, so yes, he had to get the points and the ban, right James?

You have deleted a lot of questionable content without giving any infraction points.

I have looked back at various threads in the Moderators forum, and I actually can't find any discussion. Bells apparently raised the issue, along with another more pressing issue in the same post. It looks like I dealt with the second matter and didn't get back to the first one. Apart from that post, there was not a query or any discussion from any moderator about Gustav's ban, right up to the time I banned him the second time. So, like I said, perhaps you ought to have said something at the time, since it now turns out that you have such strong feelings about it (at least retrospectively).

I raised the issue, you saw it and ignored it.

As you know, Tiassa was away for the first ban. He posted about it, remember?

Also, when you banned, you failed to document it at all in the moderator's forum. So anyone not participating in that thread and not scanning the ban list would not have known you had done it. Funny that..

Point me to a few instances where you have answered for me. I'm interested, seeing as you're such a stalwart defender of mine and all.

This thread for one.

I think you ought to resign in protest.

And that would leave you with less people to demand you answer for your actions and be responsible for them..

Rally the troops then, Varda!

So, you'll be in the lead, marching off in the general direction of spuriousmonkey's forum, closely followed by ... whom? Gustav? Tiassa? geekzilla? Reiku's latest sock puppet?

You're not the victim here James.

 

[Gustav]

Catching up...

you never will
you lack the intellect nor the integrity to actually want to do so. all you do is pervert and spin the historical record in order to paint yourself as some tragic hero being maligned by the forces of darkness.

I don't see anybody else "taking heat" over my banning of Gustav. Certainly not you. On the contrary, you've joined the angry mob in wielding the pitchforks and storming the castle, as you put it.

listen up, colonel james, if the few mods that do have integrity did not speak up on my goddamn behalf, i would still be as you thuggishly put it, "slapped down". they take the heat for your utterly reprehensible approach to moderating an internet forum

or do you imagine you could have figured all this shit on your own and bring it upon yourself to rectify the missteps??

A bystander could be forgiven for thinking that the sky was falling or something.

and that bit exemplifies the sheer depravity and degradation of morals that this thing utilities and imagine to be the norm. the sky has been falling on my head for utterly bogus reasons in the form of his thuggish slap downs. the bogus bans that this freak of nature still refuses to justify with even the barest of logical rationale

If he had enquiries, he could have PMed me rather than publically reposting the offending material. He could have PMed either myself or some other moderator or admin to get the decision reviewed.

that will never happen, james. your depravities will be aired in the public forums to see. you have to be forced and shamed to do the right thing. it is only when your back is against the wall and you see no way of sliming your skanky ass out of your latest mess that you come out and address the issues while heroically proclaiming your ass is the victim in all this and how actually magnanimous you fucking are

i mean you couldn't even maintain a bogus two week ban and i am supposed to be grateful that you did not thuggishly slap me down for a month?

seriously?
you are a goddamn sociopath, james. we all know this

As it was, it was already under review anyway.

thanks to whom? you? your goons, fraggle and hercules who are content to heil and goosestep in your basement?

You seem to be talking about ancient history here, real or imagined. With no links or other background, I really have no idea what you're referring to,

haha
you fool no one. your infamous grudges and hatred are personal attributes you simply cannot conceal nor disguise no matter how hard you try

Deleting the material was a judgment call, and I think a defensible one.

well we shall resume discussing the poster, word by fucking word.
lets here your defense of its deletion

I have looked back at various threads in the Moderators forum, and I actually can't find any discussion. Bells apparently raised the issue, along with another more pressing issue in the same post. It looks like I dealt with the second matter and didn't get back to the first one. Apart from that post, there was not a query or any discussion from any moderator about Gustav's ban, right up to the time I banned him the second time.

i knew you were fucking lying when you said you consulted with other mods. your action had only your characteristic slime and megalomania smeared all over it. how disingenuous of you, james to create some fictitious event and players. were you panicking?

/sneer

 

[Enmos]

I was reviewing the list of Moderators based on an unrelated issue and noticed that...frankly, some of the backgrounds and experience of moderators doesn't match well with the subfora they're moderating. Without intending offense, science in particular seems to have very few scientists. Why? In all reasonability, shouldn't the (yes, volunteer) staff have at least a (non-farcical) statement of some kind of experience in the area they're monitoring on SF? I'm not suggesting that mods need to be replaced, but a certain reshuffling certainly seems to be in order.

Oh, was that the topic...

-------------------------

Gustav,
I admire your guts. Addressing an admin the way you do while have 4 active infraction points. If I were James, I would have awarded you with a permanent ban.
Edit: Sorry, my mistake. Make that 5 active infraction points.

 

[Gustav]

And Tiassa, why do you feel the need to attack James like this in public?

attack? the cur is being held responsible for his actions. an admin that calls me "stupid", a "lackey" and has no problem announcing my bogus bans in fucking public, acts like a fucking goon....

sniffy:

Please give me a good reason to keep you around here, other than as an occasional reminder of spurious's little boys' club.

and what, we are supposed to what? roll over and give ass like you do? you want respect? goddamn earn it!

 

[Enmos]

attack? the cur is being held responsible for his actions. an admin that calls me "stupid", a "lackey" and has no problem announcing my bogus bans in fucking public, acts like a fucking goon..

Responsibility, Gustav?
You have set the stage for this yourself.
As for you being called "stupid" and "lacky", if that's true he should not have done that. But then, you are being a complete hypocrite for complaining about it.

 

[Gustav]

jeez
i am not complaining
i am saying that the fucking tenor of the fucking discourse is not fucking one-sided.

james is not the victim!
i am!
get that into the empty space you call a brain

none of this would have happened if james merely deleted and warned
his vindictiveness and hatred prevented him from ever considering that alternative

and look where we are now
you think i fucking wanted this?

 

[Gustav]

Edit: Sorry, my mistake. Make that 5 active infraction points.

you are a goddamn troll fueling the fire, aint ya?

an implicit admission of error was made when my ban was terminated prematurely. one would imagine an apology but all i got was further abuse. nor was the fucking infraction reversed

but that is the plan, yes?
to keep me on my last legs, my existence, a whim or fancy of the nazi contingent in sci

heil, enmos

/spits

 

[Enmos]

none of this would have happened if james merely deleted and warned

The problem is that you are at 5 infraction points. Anyone else would have been perma-banned by now.

and look where we are now
you think i fucking wanted this?

It's starting to look like it. Why did you bring Spurious into this?

 

[Gustav]

shut the fuck up, noob
you lack the fucking credentials to be talking to me

ask someone else to hold your goddamn hand

 

[Tiassa]

Notes Around

I don't see anybody else "taking heat" over my banning of Gustav. Certainly not you. On the contrary, you've joined the angry mob in wielding the pitchforks and storming the castle, as you put it.

How nice of you to ignore the examples I pointed out.

Was a time when that was considered intellectually dishonest, James. But now that you need to do it? Well, just like lying, and just like ignoring evidence on the record while simply reiterating false accusations, it's apparently not problematic anymore.

You ought to resign on principle.

That's likely coming, James. We already know that Plazma doesn't give a fuck what you do to this forum. There is little left this staff can do to improve conditions as long as you're here.

You are a cancer on this community, and I'm afraid it's terminal. Sciforums is wrecked beyond any reasonable repair.

Well, it's good to see that your public attacks on me aren't just a pathetic excuse to out your personal animosity on a member you don't like. I'm so glad you have the perspective to know a pathetic excuse when you see one.

You don't get to play the victim here, James. Your years of dishonesty, intellectual and otherwise, have poisoned this place.

You are the problem.

Before any solutions that might improve this community can have a chance at success, you need to go.

Just read what I wrote. You quoted it, so read it!

If he had enquiries, he could have PMed me rather than publically reposting the offending material.

And you easily could have answered the question instead of ducking it.

He could have PMed either myself or some other moderator or admin to get the decision reviewed. As it was, it was already under review anyway.

James, there seems to be a reason you want things out of public view: You are incapable of answering honestly.

And maybe you should have advised people that the issue was under review, instead of saying nothing about the inquiry at all.

You mean my little tantrum in which you started, as in the current thread, with posting information and complaints to the public forums that should rightly have been in the Moderators subforum? You mean my little tantrum in which you called for my demotion as an administrator, saying that I was a "detriment to the forum"? Yeah, I remember my little tantrum well. It looks like I might be having another one now. Am I? Or maybe this little tantrum is just a continuation from last November's one. It seems I have some unresolved issues.

I was referring to the occasion in November when you bawled to Plazma, demanding my head, lying in order to construe the offense. And, even more hilariously, lying about it when there was already detailed evidence on the record. I mean, you didn't even bother trying to answer the evidence. You just kept saying you didn't want to talk about it, and then kept talking about it, trying to lie to people who could easily see the evidence.

But I'm wondering: can you possibly be wrong, Tiassa?

Of course I can.

However, when it comes to your dishonesty, I'm quite certain I'm not.

You seem to be talking about ancient history here, real or imagined. With no links or other background, I really have no idea what you're referring to, other than that it was something that supposedly happened back in 2009. I suggest we stick to present matters.

What slays me about that is that I have tried to discuss it before, on multiple occasions, and you never really seem to have a good answer.

As to sticking to present matters, I can see why you would want people to ignore your consistent history of fucking things up.

Deleting the material was a judgment call, and I think a defensible one. As for the suspension, Gustav was sitting on 3 active infraction points at the time. I gave him a lesser penalty than could have been given. In other words, as stated previously, I was lenient.

Given the stupid shit Gustav gets flagged for, I don't really give a fuck how many infraction points he has.

You're not credible.

I suspended SAM for 30 days because I didn't like her opinion? When did that supposedly happen? And that's just the first fantasy.

December, 2009, after you fucked up the English language in a failed attempt to suspend her for three days.

You know, then you demanded she apologize for her opinion within twenty-four hours, and when she didn't, you suspended her for thirty days.

We fought about all the way into December.

Bells and I even fought about it. With each other.

Look, James, we're pretty much familiar with the tactic of trying to ignore something until you can say something stupid like, "It's ancient history".

I have looked back at various threads in the Moderators forum, and I actually can't find any discussion. Bells apparently raised the issue, along with another more pressing issue in the same post. It looks like I dealt with the second matter and didn't get back to the first one. Apart from that post, there was not a query or any discussion from any moderator about Gustav's ban, right up to the time I banned him the second time. So, like I said, perhaps you ought to have said something at the time, since it now turns out that you have such strong feelings about it (at least retrospectively).

And that majority of moderators who supported you? Where is that? I can't find it. Frankly, since you're unwilling to point anyone to it, I think it's another of your lies.

Point me to a few instances where you have answered for me. I'm interested, seeing as you're such a stalwart defender of mine and all.

Like I said, how nice of you to ignore the examples I provided. Now you're asking for examples?

I think you ought to resign in protest.

You mean like Bells? As I've already noted, that's likely coming.

Yeah. I've noticed my temper tantrums.

Other people have.

Tiassa may have a private "hit list". I certainly don't. And number 1 on Tiassa's list would be me, I assume.

Oh come now, James. Don't lie. There are plenty of people you go out of your way to fuck over. S.A.M. and Gustav come to mind.

You'll notice, however, that the people who annoy me don't get suspended for stupid shit. Hell, they rarely get suspended at all by my hand.

But, as you're apparently either too dishonest to admit to history, or else so fucking senile that you can't remember it, there really isn't any point, is there?

You make a fine politician, though.

• • •​

And Tiassa, why do you feel the need to attack James like this in public? Don't you think this should be discussed either in private or in the mod-forum?

(1) We—all of us—are stained by his behavior.
(2) Quite clearly, James didn't want it discussed in the mod forum, as he didn't bother to log the suspension.
(3) Quite clearly, James didn't want it discussed in the mod forum, as he passed it over completely the first time.

Why didn't you ban him, Tiassa?

Not much point in it. We've had years to make this place better. And it would seem we can't. Or don't want to. Or something like that.

I know this guy who happened to mention to me the other day that he'd lost hope, and didn't stop what he considered his hopeless labor because he felt, in some way, he couldn't. I don't disagree with the idea that he couldn't. It wasn't a literal statement demonstrating some sort of psychosis, or anything. It was a consideration of people and circumstances. I am certainly amid a crisis of hope in terms of this community. I suppose I didn't send Quadraphonics largely because I find him annoying in the first place, and, to the other, I don't see the point. Anyone on staff is welcome to suspend him. It's not like I would stop that action. I'm hard-pressed to figure who would.

Besides, the last real possibility we have of rebuilding this community into something intelligent would probably be the mythical bloodletting, and Quadraphonics has done much to make certain he would be included in the first cut.

But unless we have some idea of what we're trying to do, there really isn't much point in that, either.

• • •​

i knew you were fucking lying when you said you consulted with other mods. your action had only your characteristic slime and megalomania smeared all over it. how disingenuous of you, james to create some fictitious event and players. were you panicking?

No, he wasn't panicking. It seems lying is just what he does.

You'll notice he's "forgotten" about the long, brutal fight that erupted after he suspended S.A.M. for hurting his feelings.

Now, here's the thing: Okay, sure, we can believe him. But that was a pretty big moment in Sciforums' history. I don't think it speaks well of him that he would forget so much of history.

And, indeed, if his history is off-limits or irrelevant or whatever, why isn't yours?

 

[Enmos]

shut the fuck up, noob
you lack the fucking credentials to be talking to me

ask someone else to hold your goddamn hand

I know for a fact that spurious didn't ask to come back.
In fact, he and the others there are wondering why you are doing this. They think you're just trying to piss of James and Tiassa.
They are laughing about the whole thing.
Do you want me to quote some of the posts there?

 

[Gustav]

The problem is that you are at 5 infraction points.

its hilarious to see an american lecturing an englishman
the bloody cheek!




oxford put out a goddamn dictionary
in said goddamn dictionary, there are goddamn words
for each goddamn word, there is a goddamn pronunciation key

these days we even have... goddamn sound


do you fucking get it?
there was no fucking conspiracy
just scholars scholaring

you fucking see that, sci?
that is one of the infractions that will get me permabanned
that is the shit the trolls, enmos and james, flaunts in my face and yours

 

[Enmos]

(1) We—all of us—are stained by his behavior.
(2) Quite clearly, James didn't want it discussed in the mod forum, as he didn't bother to log the suspension.
(3) Quite clearly, James didn't want it discussed in the mod forum, as he passed it over completely the first time.

That doesn't mean you couldn't have started a discussion in the modforum.

Not much point in it. We've had years to make this place better. And it would seem we can't. Or don't want to. Or something like that.

I know this guy who happened to mention to me the other day that he'd lost hope, and didn't stop what he considered his hopeless labor because he felt, in some way, he couldn't. I don't disagree with the idea that he couldn't. It wasn't a literal statement demonstrating some sort of psychosis, or anything. It was a consideration of people and circumstances. I am certainly amid a crisis of hope in terms of this community. I suppose I didn't send Quadraphonics largely because I find him annoying in the first place, and, to the other, I don't see the point. Anyone on staff is welcome to suspend him. It's not like I would stop that action. I'm hard-pressed to figure who would.

Besides, the last real possibility we have of rebuilding this community into something intelligent would probably be the mythical bloodletting, and Quadraphonics has done much to make certain he would be included in the first cut.

But unless we have some idea of what we're trying to do, there really isn't much point in that, either.

I share that general feeling about the forum. But I don't blame James. I blame the public infighting between the mods and a host of misfit members.
If this situation doesn't clear up soon I'm gone for good. I don't need this.